


Insanity

by FatalGrace



Series: FatalGrace's Quick and Dirty Guide to the Maryland Criminal Justice System (kind of) [1]
Category: Hannibal (TV), Hannibal Lecter Series - All Media Types
Genre: Baltimore State Hospital for the Criminally Insane, Crimes & Criminals, Fanwork Research & Reference Guides, Hannibal (TV) References, Hannibal - Freeform, I really freaking hate that name it makes me cringe every time I read it, Other, Reference Guide
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2015-09-25
Updated: 2015-09-25
Packaged: 2018-04-23 08:52:29
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,009
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/4870783
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/FatalGrace/pseuds/FatalGrace
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>That guy's insane! Well, actually....He probably isn't. Here there be definitions, plus an explanation of why "Criminally Insane" is an oxymoron.</p>
            </blockquote>





	Insanity

I like to start big, so let’s talk about insanity.

First, the term “insanity” is a legal term, not a medical term. If someone is insane, it means they are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. There's a couple of different standards that are used to determine insanity: the M'Naughten rule, the Durham rule, and the Model Penal Code. Maryland uses the Model Penal Code. so you might be asking “How do you determine if someone can tell right from wrong?” That’s where expert witnesses come in. 

An expert witness is exactly what it sounds like. A person who is willing to testify--for either the prosecution or the defence--and make a statement about the case based on their knowledge and experience (Remember this phrase. Knowledge and experience. Without these, you can’t be an expert.) Here’s an in-world example. Alana Bloom, Frederick Chilton, and Hannibal Lecter could all be expert witnesses in a case where psychology or mental illness played a role. Hannibal could also be an expert witness in cases involving surgery or psychiatry. In addition to expert witnesses, there’s usually a court-appointed psychologist/psychiatrist who will administer a battery of tests to the defendant to try to determine if they’re really insane or if they’re just trying to lie their way out of trouble.

Take the following two scenarios.

Scenario 1:  
John McMurderface kills a guy by slicing his head off with a bread knife. When he’s found at the crime scene, officers note that he’s trying to make a sandwich using the victim’s head. While in prison, John tells his cellmate that he was hungry when he killed the guy, and he thought the guy was just a really big log of salami.

Scenario 2:  
John McMurderface kills a guy by slicing his head off with a bread knife. When he’s found, he’s about 5 miles away from the scene of the crime, he has no knife with him, and he’s wearing nothing but his skivvies. Police later recover both the knife and the clothes from a dumpster near the victim’s house. While in prison, John tells his cellmate that he was hungry when he killed the guy, and thought he looked like a big log of salami.

 

Clearly, killing a guy with a breadknife is not only highly unsanitary, it's also wrong....Right? Glad you asked. Remember that insanity is defined as the inability to distinguish right from wrong _during the commission of the crime_. However, there's a lot of mitigating factors. Let's say John was previously diagnosed with a mental illness that could make him violent or unable to differentiate reality from fantasy. And let's also say that this illness was controllable by medication. What if John just decided to stop taking his meds one day? Chances are, that would negate the insanity defense because had he not made the decision to stop his medication, he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he thought a guy was salami. At least, that's probably what the prosecution would argue. That being said, If John's lawyers are any good, they'll probably try to plead diminished capacity instead, meaning that John is still culpable for the crime, but he shouldn't be held accountable for a serious charge like pre-meditated murder (aka murder 1), and should instead be charged with a lesser offence such as mansluaghter or maybe even involuntary manslaughter.

How about Scenario 2? Still insane? Well, based on his explanation to his cellmate, sure. But actions really do speak louder than words. In Scenario 1, John didn't try to leave the scene, nor did he attempt to hide what he did. After all, in his mind, what he was doing was perfectly normal and acceptable. But in Scenario 2, after he committed the crime he left the scene. This shows at least some level of recognition that what he did was wrong. Then, he takes it a step further and tries to hide the evidence of what he did. This also shows an awareness of consequences--an awareness that someone who is insane won’t have. 

Obviously, these examples are a little ridiculous, and in a real case it would probably be a lot harder to prove insanity. Take Hannibal Lecter. Is he insane? He kills and eats people. Rude people. That’s pretty out there. But, in my (not very expert) opinion, Hannibal is not even close to being insane. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He knows that killing and eating people is wrong, he knows that if he gets caught he will be punished, and yet, he does it anyway. That being said, a really good lawyer and a sympathetic jury would probably be able to land him in BSHCI (or, he’d agree to a plea bargain, give up some names of people he’s killed, and land in BSHCI anyway. Either way). How about Will Graham, suffering from encephalitis? If he killed someone while he was ill, would he be insane? Sorry, that’s actually a trick question. Will wouldn’t be considered insane, but because he was suffering from an illness at the time of the crime, he would most likely be able to use a defense of “diminished capacity” and get the charge reduced.

OK, test time! Why is the name "Baltimore State Hospital for the Criminally Insane" wrong? (Hint, it's not because Baltimore isn't a state...) If you’ve been paying attention, (and I hope you were paying attention and not just reading this because you were hoping there was a prize at the end), you'll notice right away that the name contains an oxymoron. Just in case you weren't paying attention, or you're just here for the prize at the end, here's why the name is wrong: Because if you are insane, you cannot legally be held accountable for your actions, and you are therefore not a criminal. Committing a crime requires two things: actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). Insane people are not capable of meeting the criteria for a guilty mind, but more on that next time.

**Author's Note:**

> I’m totally not ragging on Thomas Harris. I love his books, and I love the world and characters he created. But that name drives me absolutely bonkers every time I see it. That being said, the phrase “criminally insane” was actually used for a really long time so I get why he used it (although I think it fell out of favour in like...the mid 1900s? Don’t quote me on that). Plus...artistic license is totally a thing.
> 
>  
> 
> Here's some of the things I used to refresh my memory:  
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Insanity_defense - gives a good description of the different rules.  
> http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html - tells which rule each state follows  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense - Good ol' Wikipedia. Not a good source for a paper, but an excellent source for a work of fiction!


End file.
